Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!neat.ai.toronto.edu!gara
From: gara@theory.toronto.edu (Gara Pruesse)
Newsgroups: ont.singles
Subject: Re: asking out over the net
Summary: AAAAARRGHH!
Keywords: use of this newsgroup, women posting, asking out, flaming Blaine
Message-ID: <89Feb20.131628est.38089@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 89 18:16:09 GMT
References: <89Feb20.002511est.38074@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <8902201716.AA05093@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Distribution: ont
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 67

AARRGGHH!  BLAINE!  Who gave you permission to put words in my mouth?

In article <8902201716.AA05093@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> you write:
>
>So I decided to talk to Gara and we both agreed that all of this is very 
>silly, that her posting was mis-interpreted by a lot of people, and that 
>this is definately not the forum for "asking people out" (individually at
>least).  More importantly, Gara agreed that we were both at fault and that
>she would remove the hex so that my modem would start working again.  So 
>let's say that this topic is closed and that all offers and bets are
>null and void.
>
I did NOT say all these things!  I did NOT say "we are both at fault"!
I said, as I've said before in this newsgroup, that I realized, after
I got some responses, that my previous posting (about the bet) could 
easily be misconstrued.  AND I said that I agreed that I was guilty of a 
breach of netiquette, namely giving the contents of another person's 
contribution to a private conversations or e-mail on the net.  

NOW YOU GO AND DO EXACTLY THAT!

Not only that, you misquote and misinterpret my words!

I mentioned the bet in a posting to this newsgroup because
I felt that I was placed in an awkward position, i.e., 
YOU asked me out publicly, but WE had private knowledge about
what motivated you to do so.  So how was I supposed to respond?
So I posted about the bet  because the bet was relevant to your 
posting, and would thus explain my reaction (or lack thereof).

In an indirect way, I think *you* brought up the bet first, by
asking me out on the net.  

The other reason I brought it up was because I felt that
asking someone out using the net was NOT appropriate; 
by NOT explaining the motivation for your posting, I might have
inadvertently lent validity to that practice.

However, regardless of the circumstances, I should not have 
brought up what another person said to me in private 
conversation.  And so I would have apologized and removed the
hexes EXCEPT THAT THEN YOU COMMIT THE VERY SAME BREACH
OF NETIQUETTE!

Okay, Blaine, the hexes are off, anyway.  But I reserve the right 
to be disgruntled.  Now let's drop the whole subject, shall we?

>I don't know if this group has a constitution, but I'll propose that it be
>the discussion of concerns of single people in Ontario and that it
>specifically discourage the soliciting of "dates."   On this vein, I'm
>particularly interested in Gara's earlier posting about women being socialized
>differently from men (in general).  Not to put the heat back on Gara, but
>I'm curious as to her observations on this subject given that she works in
>a field (computing) that is over-populated with males.  Have you observed 
>women in computing to be "different" from your Bay Street friends.  Is
>it even possible that people from these two groups could interact socially?
>
>Blaine
>-- 

I interact socially with my Bay street friends.  Does that answer 
your question?

I think this newsgroup was at its most useful when we were
exchanging restaurant information.

-gara